Cure for cancer found.

To scientists, a year old new is still fairly recent.

I saw that flawed statement when I was searching for blog posts on this topic, and I left that page immediately. Not authoritative.

I'd like to see what happens if you tried to activate you mitochondria right now in the context of this topic. Cytochrome C release leading to the formation of Apoptosome, and thus activation of Caspases and death effectors. In short, you die.

I also note that cancer is a hell lot more complex than most people would ever think. You should see the review paper "The Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation" published very recently (i.e. 1/2 months ago) arguing how neoplasia is a multifactorial complex disorder. Pretty good paper, and in there the Warburg effect was mentioned as well (obviously).

So what's my take? My take is: find out how it works and find any possible side effects in vivo and in vitro while doing clinical studies (side effect studies are part of clinical trials). Don't rush things just because it looks promising *looks at Thalidomide*. As a perspective, you think big pharmas are making big money? Oh yes they do, but what's the cost that they're paying? Out of all the R&D [in billions] that goes in, an average of 10% comes out as "successful products".

Hadriel

The mitochondria controls cell proliferation by inducing apoptosis after receiving signals from various pathways. Disruption of the outer membrane integrity of the mitochondria will also lead to apoptosis.

Yes the study is on DCA trying to so-called wake up the mitochondria, but you see they've not actually told us how it works. We advocate caution and not rush things, because failing to identify any potential side effects can lead to disastrous results. Look at Thalidomide. Or as a counter-example that proves my point as well, look at the so-called link of vaccination to Autism in the UK.

Hadriel

You'd be surprised the crap you breathe right now that passed legal tests. And that is invested constantly. There's some chemicals in plants that exceed the european numbers by thousands back there in Canada, not even sure about USA. And they are proven to have an effect on humans. Heck, there was a place near a chemical plant where everyone had health problems... And even the births were affected. 1 out of 3 children born were males, when it should be 50-50 on basis.

Yeah, it can have side effects, but what about the money spent on testing? Isn't that supposed to clear those up?

EDIT: Oops, missed that last post. Turns out we were on the same boat. Well, my point still stands.

That's fine. Once in a while the new-paged posts issue crops up.

Hadriel

Found this in the comments section. pretty much sums up my feelings.

Mitochondria is not a cell, first off. I follow a link and come to a website making the broad proclamation that cancer is cured, all of it, by a magic, cheap, widely available drug without any side effects, and then they talk about the human cancer fighting cell called mitochondria. This does not give me much hope for the claims of the article. Mitochondria is indeed in the human body, but it is not a cell, it is a cell organelle, contained in every living cell in your body. If it weren't, you'd be dead, so it's a good thing. It's major purpose isn't fighting cancer, either. It moves energy about in the cell.

Secondly, you present no evidence for your claim that "cancer is cured". The supposed link to the study doesn't actually link to any study in any peer reviewed journal, but instead to a website pushing DCA as a cure for cancer. You provide no examples of peer review for the findings of this supposed study, either. Instead, you just make broad claims about how cancer is cured and the drug companies won't make the drug, and that's why it's not out there.

But, in the same breath, you say the drug IS out there, used to treat other things. If the drug is out there, and it's clear that it cures cancer, oncologists would be PRESCRIBING IT. They can do that, you know, even if the drug isn't intended for cancer. Doctors will rather routinely prescribe drugs already on the market not yet approved for a particular treatment, so long as the evidence supports that it will work for that treatment. Especially for folks who are dying.

The second paragraph about there being no peer reviewed literature is especially important I think. If you are making an extreme claim such as "Cancer is cured", you had better have peer reviewed evidence to back it up. Article would have been more believable if it claimed "New drug shows signs of promise for treating cancer" instead of "New drug cures cancer".

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to say that something that's successfully treated one specific type of tumor is a "cure for cancer". It's great for the people who do have that kind of cancer, but... cancer is just not a single disease with a single cure.

I doubt greed is the reason the big pharmaceutical companies aren't testing this. I mean, seriously, who doesn't want their company to be called "The One that Cured Cancer," regardless of how much money is spent?

The original paper (I've read it) is pretty good science (else it won't be in Cell!), but I feel that the media is partly to blame for the excessive hype... the authors aren't very right either in making so much publicity.

I'll clarify this: The mitochondria's primary role is in metabolism and energy transduction [can't find the most accurate word off my head now], but it's role in apoptosis is crucial - without CytC and the subsequent apoptosome formation, the Caspase cascade is severely impared and you won't have regulated cell death. But obviously most of the time the mitochondria is transducing energy and not killing the original cell!

The original paper and subsequent studies hold up against water [expression problems sorry, that's what happens when you study for hours at one go], and clinical trials are very expensive so we don't necessarily expect peer-reviews for clinical trials. But peer-reviews for in vitro experiments and related stuff, yes.

Moon... DCA is hardly new... I feel that what's not acceptable is the number of articles that write blindly on DCA for cancer treatment without doing sufficient homework. Also, the primary reason why pharmas won't work on this because they can't patent it. Sure you can patent a formulation, but by then it's way too late because even the formulation must go through FDA and the whole journey - by then it's long gone.

The page on Wikipedia has been updated today. Go take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

Also, resistance of the neoplastic tissues to DCA is also possible.

Hadriel

This reminds me of another 'miracle cancer cure just around the corner' article from a few years back:

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/vie...=218392802

It's a discovery in animals that would change everything if it turns out to be true in people. An injection of blood cells from cancer-resistant mice cures cancer in ordinary mice

Several years ago, the researchers identified a rare strain of mouse immune to high, usually lethal doses of cancer cells. Now they have shown that not only are these mice cancer-resistant, but their immune cells are also capable of curing normal, non-resistant mice of any type of advanced cancer.

The researchers also developed a blood test that can identify the cancer-resistant mice without having to challenge them with cancer. They hope a similar test might help find and study cancer-resistance in people.

"If this were to be the same in humans we could simply identify cancer-resistant humans and to do the blood transfusion or white blood cell transfusion without even knowing the mechanism to find out whether it will work or not," says Cui, "So that's obviously on everybody's mind."

Never heard anything more about it since.

That one, I believe, is simply having the immune system of another's blood to target the neoplastic tissue in the target body which have evaded the host immune system's destruction. It's a hallmark of cancer. How the heck it works, I don't know and I'm too sleepy to read any more full papers.

Hadriel